TEK CHAND Vs. DEEP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 5 to 8 in a suit for specific performance are the appellants herein. The first respondent plaintiff, Deep Chand filed a suit for specific performance against the second respondent, Kare, who was the owner of the suit property measuring 26 Kanals and 2 Marlas situated in Village Prithla of Faridabad District. The first respondent agreed to purchase the land from Kare for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/- per acre and an agreement was entered into between these two parties on 8-12-1986. The first respondent paid an amount Rs. 8,000/- to Kare on the date of the agreement and Kare had to execute the sale deed by 25th May, 1987, but this date was further extended up to 15th June, 1987. However, Kare did not execute the sale deed as promised by him. Therefore, the first respondent was constrained to file suit for specific performance.

(2.) The second respondent Kare, who was the sole defendant in the suit, filed a written statement contending that he was not the real owner of the property and that it belonged to his children. He also alleged that he had mortgaged the property in favour of one Gopal. The first respondent plaintiff, thereupon impleaded the children of Kare as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit and they are respondents 3 to 5 herein. The first respondent-plaintiff later came to know that the children of Kare had effected certain alienation in favour of the appellants herein. Therefore, the appellants were impleaded as defendants 5 to 8 in the suit.

(3.) The first defendant Kare, though admitted the agreement alleged that he never intended to execute a sale deed in favour of the first respondent-plaintiff, but only a mortgage. He denied the thumb impression found on the agreement for sale. Defendants 2 to 4, who are the children of Kare, also filed a written statement alleging that there was a Family Settlement whereby the properties were given to them and that after the Family Settlement, they had filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit property and a decree was passed in their favour on 1-10-1987. They admitted having executed subsequently four sale deeds in favour of defendants 5 to 8 in respect of a portion of the suit property.